>> Indeed, I'm using CentOS 5.5 amd64. I was not doing the installation
>> with RPM packages, but compile the source code obtained at the official
>> site of Bacula. On sunday, doing tests comparing with the installation
>> done with packages RPM, I realized that the difference was in which the
>> libraries were in /usr/lib64.
>> 
>
>You may consider rebuilding a Fedora Rawhide source RPM which is supposed to 
>be the latest Bacula source code version, but does include the semantics to 
>make it all work properly in the end -on most Fedora derivative systems.

I've been following this thread in hopes of uncovering the reason why the
op would even compile himself for a platform that has precompiled binaries
available (lets forgo the obvious argument for destroying a package managed
Cadillac OS in the first place) and I haven't seen it appear?

Why the need to endure all this pain in the first place? Even if compile time
options needed to be changed, wouldn't it be 
easier/smarter/faster/lighter/shinier
to modify the spec and rebuild?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by 

Make an app they can't live without
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev 
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users